Stephen Hawking Replaced with Double?

[Psalehesost]

[quote author=BHelmet]
Oh yeah, just one more thing (like Columbo used to say): just how do you 'stage' something without any 'actors'?

Perhaps you'd be interested to read or listen to SOTT Talk Radio: The Sandy Hook Massacre, What Really Happened?

Perhaps a search on Cointelpro, false flag operation or psy-ops would make it clearer for you ?

Joe: ... "Hi, I'm Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of the school and here's what happened." This is another example of someone on the scene, or, it's more evidence that there were people; very few people is all that it would take, on the scene talking to the media, presenting themselves as people that they were not, and giving deliberately false information to the media that created, as we keep mentioning, this morass of contradictory and conflicting information that came out from the media as a result of this shooting.

Joe: But it's in a particular context; it's in a kind of historical context in the sense of our claim that, for example; and we are not saying there were actors at Sandy Hook, we are saying there were people who were involved in the shooting who deliberately spread disinformation to the media and were posing as the school principal, for example.

well ok - whatever - maybe it is just all semantics
[/quote]

When they're saying there weren't actors there, they're making the point that people actually died, and that grieving families, etc., were also real. By contrast, widely popular (and rather dumb) "actors" theories claim that it is all literally a show, where no one died and it was all theater.

 

[BHelmet]

[quote author=BHelmet]
Oh yeah, just one more thing (like Columbo used to say): just how do you 'stage' something without any 'actors'?

Perhaps you'd be interested to read or listen to SOTT Talk Radio: The Sandy Hook Massacre, What Really Happened?

Perhaps a search on Cointelpro, false flag operation or psy-ops would make it clearer for you ?

Joe: ... "Hi, I'm Dawn Hochsprung, the principal of the school and here's what happened." This is another example of someone on the scene, or, it's more evidence that there were people; very few people is all that it would take, on the scene talking to the media, presenting themselves as people that they were not, and giving deliberately false information to the media that created, as we keep mentioning, this morass of contradictory and conflicting information that came out from the media as a result of this shooting.

Joe: But it's in a particular context; it's in a kind of historical context in the sense of our claim that, for example; and we are not saying there were actors at Sandy Hook, we are saying there were people who were involved in the shooting who deliberately spread disinformation to the media and were posing as the school principal, for example.

well ok - whatever - maybe it is just all semantics

When they're saying there weren't actors there, they're making the point that people actually died, and that grieving families, etc., were also real. By contrast, widely popular (and rather dumb) "actors" theories claim that it is all literally a show, where no one died and it was all theater.
[/quote]

I guess what I am saying is that, to me, people posing as others to disseminate misinformation are actors. I get the difference between fake parents and fake 'witnesses'.

 

[BHelmet]

I have been trying to think of a constructive way to get to some point of resolution on the issues at play in this thread.

(Not really concerning Miles Mathis or Sandy Hook-but to try to get at the underlying root. BTW, FWIW (I know, next to nothing) my take on Mathis is that he is genuinely seeking the truth but he just happens to be wrong to some significant degree. I don't think he is a clown or he would not have accomplished what he has. He also has no real social media or youtube presence which is inconsistent with the idea he is an attention seeker. I understand many people have written him off as a lost cause or worse. I get that.)

I am trying to find a way to frame some general questions, perhaps for the C's, that don't get too specific and leave the door open for people to make up their own minds.

So what are the key questions or assertions in question?

1. Prominent or key public figures/spokespersons/artists being replaced by a double/look-alike; with plastic surgery.

2. Prominent or key public figures/spokespersons/artists being replaced by a clone. (!?)

3. Prominent or key public figures/spokespersons/artists being removed from play by a faked death.

4. Prominent or key public figures/spokespersons/artists being co-opted or compromised in some way.

5. Prominent or key public figures/spokespersons/artists being actual intelligence assets from the beginning.

The reasons these strategies would be used are obvious, IMO. So I don't think there is a question of motive but more of just how much is this done and has the focus or incidence of a certain approach increased over time?

Here is a C's quote:

A: Replacement.
Q: (L) Replacement of what?
A: You.
Q: (L) How do you mean? Creating a race to replace human
beings, or abducting specific humans to replace them with
a clone or whatever?
A: Mainly the former.

So - mainly the former. But that implies that the latter is also done.

and there is this:

Q: (L) When did "name" die (where "name" is replaced with those provided in the list in the background section)? (laughter) They want to know when did Jim Morrison die, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, Natalie Wood, Elvis Presley, John Lennon...

A: Oh puhleeze! Does the person or persons asking these questions not have a few firing neurons to do research and draw conclusions themselves? These questions are so trivial that it actually makes our nonexistent jaws drop.

The question 'when' is indeed inconsequential - unless the 'when' was 'never' or some odd date significantly different than the official date.

this also kind of relates:
9 june 96
Q: (L) Obviously the consortium was operating through the FBI, the CIA, the Mafia, and God knows who else, but, can you tell us who fired the shot that caused JFK's death?

A: No, because it would put you in grave danger.

So, it seems, care is needed to construct the right questions and perhaps some questions are best left unanswered. That is why I was trying to think of a generic approach to these questions.

 

[Zasino]

[..]I asked a friend who is a physics buff whether any of Mathis's scientific work is any good. 2 minutes of reading Mathis he notices all his claims that accepted scientific tenets are false, but Mathis hardly details how or why they are false, but goes on about that his methods and calculations are right (apparently). But it made little sense to my friend. [..]

Alkhemst, I don't think that 2 mins., even with hyper-speedreading by your physics buff friend, are enough to grasp MM's conjectures. I recommend you start from his early papers, since he keeps referring back to them. And digest as you go along. Sadly, the process may take two days or more.
FWIW
.A

 

[mkrnhr]

It is fascinating how fascination works. When I was a student, we had a game were you try to sound scientific while saying utter nonsense. It's funny when you know the rules of the game, not funny when you read a blog about something you have no knowledge about. And that's the trap: You can say all you want to people "you have to think by yourselves", the won't if they have no knowledge about what you're talking about. Our minds are lazy because that's how our biology is made: we minimize the effort we "spend" while seeking the maximum of reward (physical, psychological, or otherwise).

Distraction on the other hand, is something on which one invests time and energy for no real benefits. An example of this is this Mathis Matis. I've been to his site a few years ago because he was often (at that time) cited by some alternative science bloggers. Of course, I avoid to read what I don't understand (that would be stupid: why would you read about a refutation of General Relativity if you don't know General Relativity to begin with!!). However, what I've read at that time didn't convince me at all (I think it was about calculus and classical physics). There are tons of text and very little substance, and no proofs, and very often ridiculous interpretations of some definitions that every student knowing the assumptions and limits of validity of that or that model (this is fundamental to understand).

As time passed by, these bloggers relied less and less on Mathis stuff. One reason is because with time and practice you become better at spotting the detail devils within an otherwise seemingly convincing discourse. The other possible reason is that mental masturbation by definition doesn't give birth to any real knowledge, only a caricature of knowledge. It tends to be selected out by serious readers. The might be some good details there, but i doubt it can't be found elsewhere. The myth of the solitary genius who figures out all the secrets of the universe is cute, but it's just rubbish.

Anyway, and this doesn't apply only to Mathis stuff, whenever one reads a "scientific" claim, one has to do it with the proper attitude of checking every claim, every detail, and every proof. It's not easy but that's how reading this kind of stuff works. You can't read a paper about mathematics or physics laying on a sofa, one has to take notes, redo the demonstrations, check for the logical fallacies, etc. Just because someone says that science is corrupt doesn't mean that what he proposes is not. If you want to learn about something, learn everything possible about it.

In other words, one does it right or doesn't do it. Deception is everywhere, in the official and non official sciences. It's very easy to fool ourselves into believing that something makes sense because it makes us feel special and exceptional. We are all ruled by system 1 the powerful, and the meek system 2 only makes narratives afterwards. OSIT

 

[Sol Logos]

So, based on my familiarity with MM's work, here is my opinion.
MM has many talents, one is painting. He is a keen observer. To produce something like this
http://mileswmathis.com/cameo.html requires among other things a sharp and well-trained eye.
As seen with his other gifts and talents, he likes to show them, sometimes even to "show off". Call it vanity if you will.
So, he happened to notice discrepancies between two of Hawking's pictures (discrepancies which apparently nobody else had noticed before), analyzed them closer and, ignoring several other plausible explanations, went straight to the replacement theory.

If he's got a keen eye, he uses this keen eye to cherry pick photos to retrofit his foregone conclusion. The reason being is there are literally thousands of photos of Hawking on a Google image search, and many show a progression of age, not the sudden change that Mathis cherry picked photos to make his foregone conclusion that Hawking was replaced appear valid.

Lets say Mathis is sincere with this claim. When looking for photos of Hawking he has to ignore all the photos that don't fit the replacement theory and focus on the few that make it seem plausible. Then he finds other facts about Hawking that fit the replacement theory and he has to ignore the ones that dispute it such as he was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009, wouldn't someone have noticed? Then he weaves this all together to make it appear valid, he even tells people they won't be able to find many legitimate photos, but he doesn't give any evidence of the existence of non-legitimate photos, we just have to believe he knows best.

That's a very non-scientific approach and if he uses the same approach with his science (which seems to be the case), his science would be very non-scientific too.

My moral of the story, I keep my admiration for MM's talents: sharp mind, keen observer, impeccable articulation, rebellious attitude (the babies), but throw out Hawking (the dirty bathwater).

The moral of the story for me is I should approach what Miles Mathis claims with a very high degree of skepticism.

 

[Laura]

The moral of the story for me is I should approach what Miles Mathis claims with a very high degree of skepticism.

Amen. Much ado about nothing.

 

[SummerLite]

Alkhemst,

Lets say Mathis is sincere with this claim. When looking for photos of Hawking he has to ignore all the photos that don't fit the replacement theory and focus on the few that make it seem plausible. Then he finds other facts about Hawking that fit the replacement theory and he has to ignore the ones that dispute it such as he was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009, wouldn't someone have noticed? Then he weaves this all together to make it appear valid, he even tells people they won't be able to find many legitimate photos, but he doesn't give any evidence of the existence of non-legitimate photos, we just have to believe he knows best.

That's a very non-scientific approach and if he uses the same approach with his science (which seems to be the case), his science would be very non-scientific too.

Very good, this brings clarity and makes a lot of sense. The guy is sounding more and more whacko as time goes on. One can come here and say this person is disinfo, crazy and all the things he's been called here. And these forum members have expressed what they saw or sensed as the truth. But this type of detail shows me much more clearly what the "truth" is here. Also this sheds light on his "scientific claims" and there is no reason to think he handles that differently.


Another thought:
MM can have all these remarkable abilities, artistic, keen eye etc. but still be wacko. Its something like buying a product because you like the pretty box.

 

[SlavaOn]

Drum roll, please....

Research to grow back missing teeth using stem cells has been going on for years. Apparently its being readied to be released into the public soon. Here is a portion of one article:


There are many articles of the studies done if you want to look. I also noticed that stem cell research for the treatment of ALS has been on going for quite some time. So here is a clue for one of the "hidden" treatments I'd say.

I don't know what discoveries are being made with stem cells around the world these days but I know a lot is happening with that. I followed this at one time but lost touch. Its been repressed for the most part in the US as you probably know.

So there it is, my BIG discovery!! I don't need to think about Stephens teeth any longer. :D (IF this is the truth!)

From what I read about stem cell research - it led to nowhere. Where is the technology to regrow missing teeth, mentioned 5 years ago in this thread? Even worse - injecting someone's cell culture of artificially manufactured stem cells will give you cancer (if the cells are alive) or won't work as advertised (if these were frozen and thawed aka dead cells)....

Coming back to the original issue with Stephen's bottom teeth - how did they do it then?